Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (263793)	12/8/2005 8:46:15 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1578699

"The US is not the leader of women's rights. " Umm, ok. Is Germany? Where women can't work certain hours for their own safety and they should be with their family any way? Unless they happen to be a nurse or something equivalent. Then it is ok. Sure, the past couple or three decades has seen erosion of women's rights in this country. And a fair amount of that is because a significant number of women were uncomfortable with the situation. Which played into the hands of men who wanted to roll things back. But even so, the issues of women being able to vote, being able to work outside of the home and other issues were first brought up and addressed in this country, often by decades. Even in what is now pretty regressive Texas, the first palimony suit was brought, and won, over a century ago. We had a female governor in the 1920s. Women's rights weren't just a '60s thing. What we needed during th Reagan administration was women to step up and champion progress instead of getting into a spat over whether or not stay at home moms were being valued enough. Talk about handing your opponents a club to beat you with. But, back on topic. No I wouldn't. Given the current state of affairs, where a lot of lip service is given to security, and there is a superficial show of providing it, the system is deeply flawed and pretty much indifferent to people with handicaps. And maybe those flaws contributed to that poor man's death. Maybe not. It is hard to think of a system that would have resulted in a different outcome without the marshals failing at their job. Even pre-911 a similar outcome might have resulted, announcing you have a bomb or talking about highjacking a plane in and around airplanes was going to result in negative consequences.